FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25051

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
25051 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Columbia Plateau Natural Resources Collaborative (CPNRC)
Proposal ID	25051
Organization	U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Terry Nelson
Mailing address	101 SW Main, Suite 1300 Portland, OR 97204
Phone / email	5034143014 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Bill White, Assistant State Conservationist
Review cycle	Columbia Plateau
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / John Day
Short description	Establish collaborative process to provide assistance to local watershed groups on subbasin planning, ESA/CWA integration, and implementation funding to facilitate conservation application to restore salmon and water quality on private lands.
Target species	Steelhead, chinook, coho, bull trout, Redband trout and Pacific lamprey however all fish and wildlife species will benefit from the watershed/ecosystem approach used by NRCS and the conservation partnership.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
44.87	-119.63	John Day River Subbasin
44.42	-121.07	Deschutes River Subbasin
45.52	-119.1	Umatilla River Subbasin
45.92	-118.3	Walla Walla Subbasin

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Action 153
Action 154
Action 152
Action 151
Action 150
Action 149

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 154	NMFS	BPA shall work with the NWPPC to ensure development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans; match state and local funding for coordinated development of watershed assessments and plans; and help fund technical support for subbasin and watershed plan implementation from 2001 to 2006. Planning for priority subbasins should be completed by the 2003 check-in. The action agencies will work with other Federal agencies to ensure that subbasin and watershed assessments and plans are coordinated across non-Federal and Federal land ownerships and programs.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
2000	Completed, with the local partnership, implementation of Buck Hollow Watershed Project; treatment on 60,000 acres of rangeland, 10,500 acres of cropland and 25 miles of stream habitat improvement for a total investment of $4.6 million dollars.
2001	Completed NRCS small watershed projects in addition to Buck Hollow: include Dry Fork (Heppner), Juniper Canyon (Prineville), and Upper Stage Gulch (Pendleton).
2001	Trout Creek and Willow Creek are two active Coordinated Resource Management Planning processes that the conservation partnership is involved in with other agencies and stakeholders.
2001	NRCS and conservation partnerships in Tillamook completed assessment and planning process on the Lower Tillamook Bay Watershed Plan that will provide $8 million dollars of restoration funding through the PL-566 small watershed progam.
2001	Performance for year 2001 to date as reported by NRCS and conservation partnership for these subbasins: 129,470 acres of conservation management systems, 250 acres of buffers, and 69,500 acres of wildlife land improvement to date for 2001.
2000	Performance reported for year 2000 as reported by NRCS and conservation partnership for these subbasins: 318,760 acres of conservation management systems, 1,645 acres of buffers, and 129,230 acres of wildlife land improvement in 2000.
1999	Performance reported for year 1999 as reported by NRCS and conservation partnership for these subbasins: 121,800 acres of conservation management systems, 830 acres of buffers, and 64,900 acres of wildlife land improvement in 1999.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
	Implementation of USDA NRCS Farm Bill Programs (EQIP, WHIP, WRP, FIP) in Subbasins	Total implementation since 1996 of these programs awarded 302 contracts for $4.9 million dollars for private lands conservation.
	Implementation of USDA FSA CRP, Continuous CRP and CREP in these subbasins	Total implementation since 1986 for CRP programs has resulted in 1,900 contracts on 425,000 acres; however, only 3,200 acres were for CREP or continuous CRP (both are for riparian buffers initiatives).
	The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds	This proposal specifically addresses the Oregon Plan's four essential elements: community based action, government coordination, monitoring and corrective actions.
	B.O. RPA 149	Columbia Plateau Natural Resources Collaborative (CPNRC) will work with BOR interdisciplinary team implementing action 149 and with BOR field liasons. USDA Service Centers may be used to co-locate BOR staff with USDA and SWCD staff.
	B.O. RPA 150	CPNRC will provide guidance to NRCS/SWCD field staff on BPA and NMFS criteria for protecting non-Federal habitat. Local partnership will market, plan and implement conservation management systems to accelerate implementation on non federal lands.
	B.O. RPA 151	CPNRC will provide assistance and training to NRCS/SWCD field staff on BPA water broker program. NRCS/SWCD will assist private landowners on implementing irrigation water management to conserve water.
	B.O. RPA 152	CPNRC will provide for direct integration and coordination of staff, programs and policies. Team will provide guidance on subbasin planning, ESA/CWA consultations, sharing of technical expertise and data, and leveraging of funding.
	B.O. RPA 153	CPNRC will work on integrating, modifying and promoting state and federal programs such as CREP to improve watershed health.
	B.O. RPA 154	Team will function as clearinghouse for local partnership to obtain information and guidance on programs, funding, data and technical support for subbasin and watershed planning and implementation.
	Deschutes Subbasin Summary	Fullfills objectives to build partnerships and accelerate planning.
	John Day Subbasin Summary	Supports objectives to collaborate on data, expertise, training and funding.
	Columbia River Salmon Recovery Strategy (All H Paper)	Supports the biological objectives to halt declining population trends within 5 to 10 years.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Establish Columbia Plateau Natural Resources Collaborative (CPNRC) to assist subbasin planning process by June 2002.	a. Fill core positions (watershed planner, resource conservationist, biologist and geomorphologist) on the interdisciplinary team (IT)	2	$0
	b. Obtain commitments from other agencies (NMFS, BPA, BLM, etc.) to provide additional staff	2	$0
	c. Fill positions on Field Staff (FS)	2	$0
2. Provide assistance to local groups on 4 subbasin assessments between 2002 and 2005.	a. IT provides guidance and training to local entities (SWCDs, Watershed Councils, Tribes, etc.) on subbasin process and other related programs and opportunities (USDA programs, ESA Habitat Conservation Plans, 4d Rules, etc.)	5	$100,800
	b. IT provides specialized technical assistance for assessments and evaluations (GIS, geology, hydrology, etc).	5	$78,400
	c. IT can locate and make accessible data, studies, and technology for local assessments and evaluations.	5	$89,600
3. Provide assistance to local groups on 4 subbasin plans between 2002 and 2005.	a. IT facilitates local efforts to integrate exisitng planning efforts (subbasin planning, ESA, CWA, TMDL's, Oregon Plan, ICBEMP, etc.) on non-federal and federal lands.	5	$22,400
	b. IT assists local efforts to scope and develop plans of work to achieve objectives.	5	$33,600
	c. IT provides assistance to local groups to formulate and evaluate effectiveness of subbasin plans.	5	$22,400
4. Integrate and leverage existing funding programs (USDA, NWPPC, OWEB, etc.) to maximize implementation effectiveness for local groups by 2005.	a. CPNRC recommends ways to make existing programs more effective and acceptabe to the local community.	5	$33,600
	b. CPNRC makes recommendatios for modifications to increase landowner participation in existing funding programs.	5	$11,200
	c. RC&D Coordinators assist local groups to identify and obtain funding for conservation implementation on private lands.	5	$0
5. Streamline NEPA and ESA processes for agencies and private landowners for conservation activities by 2003.	a. IT assist with fulfilling NEPA and Section 7 ESA responsibilities from an interagency perspective.	5	$11,200
	b. IT assists local groups with ESA Habitat Conservation Plans and/or 4d rules.	5	$33,600
	c. IT assists local groups with permitting process for installing conservation practices/systems.	5	$5,600

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Establish CPNRC	2003	2003	$0
2. Subbasin Assessment Assistance	2003	2006	$585,300
3. Subbasin Planning Assistance	2003	2006	$739,300
4. Integrate Programs (linking existing programs with actions)	2003	2006	$266,000
5. Streamline interagency NEPA and ESA processes	2003	2006	$196,000

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$582,500	$498,500	$498,500	$207,200

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
6. FS assists local groups identify early actions(screening, passage, flow) in four subbasins during 2002-2003.	a. Using subbasin summaries and other available data opportunities identified for early actions.	2	$56,000
	b. FS assists local groups with locating willing participants, funding, and final project designs to implement early actions.	2	$33,600
7. CPNRC assists local groups acquire funding, technology, and expertise needed to implement conservation practices	a. CPNRC & RC&D coordinators assists local groups obtain funding and permits.	4	$33,600
	b. IT team assist agencies with ESA section 7 consultations responsibilities.	4	$22,400
8. Local partnership (NRCS & SWCDs) accelerate adoption of conservation on private lands by 50 percent over the next five years.	a. IT team will provide interagency technical training to new positions.	5	$44,800
	b. Field staff proactively markets and seeks participation of private landowners.	5	$67,200
	c. Field staff develop conservation plans to be implemented with private landowners.	5	$112,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
6. Identify and implement early actions	2003	2003	$67,200
7. Acquire funding, technology and expertise	2003	2006	$313,600
8. Develop and implement conservation plans	2003	2006	$2,038,700

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$526,500	$604,900	$604,900	$683,300

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
9. Progress and implementation monitoring completed annually.	a. CPNRC enters all appropriate activities (assessment, planning and implementation) into USDA Performance & Results Measurement System (PRMS), a web based database accessible by all agenices.	5	$2,800
	b. CPNRC creates annual report of progress	5	$2,800
10. Effectiveness monitoring assistance provided by interagency team.	a. Interagency team provides assistance on the design of effectiveness monitoring for agricultural lands to regional and local groups	5	$5,600

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
9. Progress and implementation monitoring	2003	2006	$28,000
10. Effectiveness monitoring	2003	2006	$39,200

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$11,200	$16,800	$16,800	$22,400

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 12.5	$505,300
Fringe		$143,300
Supplies	Provided in-kind by NRCS	$0
Travel	Vehicles and travel to training	$23,900
Indirect	14 percent	$101,100
Capital	Computers (laptops for the field) and software	$49,600
Other	Office Space in-kind by NRCS	$0
		$823,200

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$823,200
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$823,200
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
USDA NRCS	Personnel Salary and Benefits for 2.25 FTE	$142,000	in-kind
USDA NRCS	Supplies, Office Space, misc.	$56,000	in-kind
Anticipated other agency staff (see other budget explanation below)	At least 2 FTE	$126,200	in-kind

Other budget explanation

FY2002 will be mobilization year to fill positions on Interdisciplinary Team and Field Staff, assume the Columbia Plateau Natural Resources Collaborative will only be able to operate at 70% of full capacity. FY2006 would be a phase out of the Interdisciplinary Team; however, the Field Staff would be expected to continue through year 2012. NRCS anticipates other state and federal agencies will provide additional in-kind staff. Negotiations have begun with Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation and Bonneville Power Administration on furnishing additional staff positions.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-6)

Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required

Date:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Do not fund. This proposal would establish cooperative multi-federal agency provision of planning and technical assistance to agricultural landowners through existing local conservation partnerships for the purpose of accelerating the implementation of conservation activities. The idea is to establish a single planning process that would streamline all the various regulatory requirements. The project has 2 components: interdisciplinary planning and field office implementation.

The proposal is a large and expensive one that is focused on increasing staff size substantially. Funds are requested for 2.5 FTEs, equipment, travel and supplies. While streamlining requirements is a good idea, the proposal does not make a compelling case that adding an additional layer of coordination group would fix the problem, nor does it establish the critical need for the proposed services. The present staff appears competent but the proposed project seems to be top-heavy with planners.

The proposal asks for a significant amount of money ($823k) to fix a coordination problem across federal agencies, without establishing that a lack of money is currently limiting the coordination. If there is a problem with federal agency coordination, why don't the staffs of the federal agencies in question fix it through existing means?

The proposal lacked a sharp focus and seemed to alternate between suggesting it would work directly with the landowner (which the SWCDs already seem to do well!) or suggesting that it's best efforts might be to serve as a liaison / support center for the SWCDs in assisting them to implement riparian buffer actions with the local landowner through CRP programs. How much redundancy is there between the work proposed in this project and the functioning of the SWCD projects in implementing the CRP activities at the level of the individual landowner? The proposal and presentation asserted that their larger staff and more regional perspective would be a resource asset to the SWCDs and would significantly speed up the implementation of CRP-funded riparian buffer enhancement from the perspective of the local landowner. No indication was made whether the SWCDs shared this view.

The SWCD proposals working at the grass roots level seem to provide the same services in a much more cost-effective manner. The cost of this project versus the SWCD projects differs by nearly an order of magnitude. Would the benefits of this project deliver benefits in line with the difference in cost?

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Recommended Action

Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

This proposal requests staffing ($643,300/year for 25 positions) for coordination for subbasin planning/assessments for the John Day Subbasin, activities that are already performed by watershed councils. Reviewers suggest these activities should be funded through the USDA.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-8)

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

While streamlining requirements is a good idea, the proposal does not make a compelling case that adding an additional layer of coordination group would fix the problem, nor does it establish the critical need for the proposed services. The present staff appears competent but the proposed project seems to be top-heavy with planners. The proposal is a large and expensive one that is focused on increasing staff size substantially. Funds are requested for 2.5 FTEs, equipment, travel and supplies. The proposal asks for a significant amount of money ($823k) to fix a coordination problem across federal agencies, without establishing that a lack of money is currently limiting the coordination. If there is a problem with federal agency coordination, why don't the staffs of the federal agencies in question fix it through existing means?

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Establish collaborative process to provide assistance to local watershed groups on subbasin planning, ESA/CWA integration, and implementation funding to facilitate conservation application to restore salmon and water quality on private lands.

Comments
Proposal would establish a cooperative multi-Federal agency group to provide planning & technical assistance to agricultural landowners thru existing local conservation partnerships for the purpose of accelerating the implementation of conservation activities. The idea is to establish a single planning process that would streamline all the various regulatory requirements. There are a number of established venues within which this issue could be dealt. Proposal requests a significant amount of money ($823K) for coordination for subbasin planning/assessments for the John Day Subbasin, are these activities already performed by watershed councils and other established groups in this subbasin?

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Rank C

Date:
Oct 16, 2001

Comment:

Under this proposal, the NRCS would provide assistance to local watershed groups on subbasin planning, ESA/CWA integration, and implementation funding to facilitate conservation application to restore salmon and water quality on private lands. However, the extent to which BPA should support local and state infrastructure needs to be explored further; therefore, this proposal should be deferred.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment: